Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
ancianita
ancianita's Journal
ancianita's Journal
December 21, 2022
I took a moment on Facebook to tell Bloomberg to fuck off with his self serving bullshit, because someone has to.
"Sharing"? "Challenges"? "We'll have even more to share with you"? "Follow along"? says the pitchman for philanthropies.
Philanthropies exist to deduct a significant tax responsibility, or as they say, "liability," in the form of philanthropic giving.
Philanthropic giving functions as "a bad transfer of power", from democratically elected politicians to unelected billionaires, whereby it is no longer "the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich who decide".
How that works is to force lower taxes for the ultra-rich than for the value producers of the working class. Philanthropists then set up a "charity" as they actually continue to siphon off the value of any nation's assets and labor.
For the last seven years, the Global Policy Forum has warned elected politicians that they should be particularly concerned about "the
-- unpredictable and insufficient financing of public goods, the
-- lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms, and the
-- prevailing practice of applying business logic to the provision of public goods".
Humanity could have advanced much further by now without philanthropists. Philanthropy has cost the world abundance, while philanthropists proclaim the goodness of their crumbs distribution to those they deem worthy of sharing with.
How to make a nation-turned-corporate campus look palatable to humans:
Hide the taking. Promote the giving.
Advance his and fellow elites' goals of the new corporate world order, including AI, while buying up attendant bag men in governments.
Instead of apologizing here for your part in siphoning the world's labor and assets, you present yourself on a platform to perform a humble pitch of the tired lie that your interests are everyone's interests.
You hide that you are a pro-monopoly capitalist, above all. Philanthropists like you don't care if your gains are from win-lose capitalism or win-win capitalism.
No one here should forget that.
Mr. Bloomberg, many buy what you're pitching. But many more don't. Because they see the scale of harm, loss and damage done, and rightly distrust the two-faced Janus of wealth builders who have framed humanity's future in their world corporate campus as "inevitable, so let's follow along."
Humanity cannot afford philanthropy.
'Tis the Season of, by and for Philanthropists
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7kcZF4JO7qwI took a moment on Facebook to tell Bloomberg to fuck off with his self serving bullshit, because someone has to.
"Sharing"? "Challenges"? "We'll have even more to share with you"? "Follow along"? says the pitchman for philanthropies.
Philanthropies exist to deduct a significant tax responsibility, or as they say, "liability," in the form of philanthropic giving.
Philanthropic giving functions as "a bad transfer of power", from democratically elected politicians to unelected billionaires, whereby it is no longer "the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich who decide".
How that works is to force lower taxes for the ultra-rich than for the value producers of the working class. Philanthropists then set up a "charity" as they actually continue to siphon off the value of any nation's assets and labor.
For the last seven years, the Global Policy Forum has warned elected politicians that they should be particularly concerned about "the
-- unpredictable and insufficient financing of public goods, the
-- lack of monitoring and accountability mechanisms, and the
-- prevailing practice of applying business logic to the provision of public goods".
Humanity could have advanced much further by now without philanthropists. Philanthropy has cost the world abundance, while philanthropists proclaim the goodness of their crumbs distribution to those they deem worthy of sharing with.
How to make a nation-turned-corporate campus look palatable to humans:
Hide the taking. Promote the giving.
Advance his and fellow elites' goals of the new corporate world order, including AI, while buying up attendant bag men in governments.
Instead of apologizing here for your part in siphoning the world's labor and assets, you present yourself on a platform to perform a humble pitch of the tired lie that your interests are everyone's interests.
You hide that you are a pro-monopoly capitalist, above all. Philanthropists like you don't care if your gains are from win-lose capitalism or win-win capitalism.
No one here should forget that.
Mr. Bloomberg, many buy what you're pitching. But many more don't. Because they see the scale of harm, loss and damage done, and rightly distrust the two-faced Janus of wealth builders who have framed humanity's future in their world corporate campus as "inevitable, so let's follow along."
Humanity cannot afford philanthropy.
December 21, 2022
Slava ukrayine and Merry Christmas!
from Daily Kos:
Ukraine's Gift To The World, "Carol of the Bells," Sung At Carnegie Hall Dec 4
Slava ukrayine and Merry Christmas!
from Daily Kos:
Did you know that one of our most popular Christmas songs has a deep history and origin from the country of Ukraine?
“Carol Of The Bells” is not a traditional Christmas Carol, but rather what is referred to in Ukrainian as a “Shchedryk”, a four note melody dating back to the pre-Christian era that Ukrainians sang in the spring when swallows returned from their winter migration. The song was part of New Year celebrations meant to bless each other with a prosperous harvest written and composed by Ukrainian composer Mykola Leontovych in 1914, with new lyrics added some later by American born Peter J. Wilhousky for NBC Network Symphony Orchestra Radio around the the time of The Great Depression, and later copyrighted in 1936, despite the song having been published almost two decades earlier in the Ukrainian National Republic. American recordings by various artists began to surface on the radio in the 1940s.
But let’s back up...
In 1918, Ukraine declared independence from the Russian empire but the newly formed government "had to fight" for recognition in the international community. The head of state in Ukraine decided to use the song as a tool for diplomacy, directing Oleksandr Hoshyts, a conductor, regent, and composer to assemble a choir of 100 singers for a European tour. The choir was directed to get to Paris, where at that time, the world leaders were meeting for the “Paris Peace Conference” to redraw European borders following World War I. It was the hope of Ukraine’s leader that the choir would help them gain formal international recognition — and also fuel international support for Ukraine’s fight against Bolshevik Russia.
Ukraine’s choir was able to leave Kyiv on Feb. 4, 1919, just one day before Russia captured the city: Only 30 singers left for the tour.
During the upheaval and Russia’s attempt to completely subjugate Ukraine, its lands, and its culture at that time, composer Mykola Leontovych was murdered by a Russian agent in 1921, and he is known to this day as a martyr in the Eastern Orthodox Church where he is also remembered for his Liturgy the first composed in the vernacular, specifically in the modern language of Ukraine we are familiar with today.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/20/2142914/--Carol-Of-The-Bells-A-Ukrainian-Musical-Gift-To-The-World?pm_source=story_sidebar&pm_medium=web&pm_campaign=recommended
“Carol Of The Bells” is not a traditional Christmas Carol, but rather what is referred to in Ukrainian as a “Shchedryk”, a four note melody dating back to the pre-Christian era that Ukrainians sang in the spring when swallows returned from their winter migration. The song was part of New Year celebrations meant to bless each other with a prosperous harvest written and composed by Ukrainian composer Mykola Leontovych in 1914, with new lyrics added some later by American born Peter J. Wilhousky for NBC Network Symphony Orchestra Radio around the the time of The Great Depression, and later copyrighted in 1936, despite the song having been published almost two decades earlier in the Ukrainian National Republic. American recordings by various artists began to surface on the radio in the 1940s.
But let’s back up...
In 1918, Ukraine declared independence from the Russian empire but the newly formed government "had to fight" for recognition in the international community. The head of state in Ukraine decided to use the song as a tool for diplomacy, directing Oleksandr Hoshyts, a conductor, regent, and composer to assemble a choir of 100 singers for a European tour. The choir was directed to get to Paris, where at that time, the world leaders were meeting for the “Paris Peace Conference” to redraw European borders following World War I. It was the hope of Ukraine’s leader that the choir would help them gain formal international recognition — and also fuel international support for Ukraine’s fight against Bolshevik Russia.
Ukraine’s choir was able to leave Kyiv on Feb. 4, 1919, just one day before Russia captured the city: Only 30 singers left for the tour.
During the upheaval and Russia’s attempt to completely subjugate Ukraine, its lands, and its culture at that time, composer Mykola Leontovych was murdered by a Russian agent in 1921, and he is known to this day as a martyr in the Eastern Orthodox Church where he is also remembered for his Liturgy the first composed in the vernacular, specifically in the modern language of Ukraine we are familiar with today.
December 21, 2022
Legislative recommendations are key to the Jan 6 Committee's investigation. Although this bill was introduced before the committee could finish, it can still count as an important outcome of the House Select Committee's work, since Elector shenanigans were based on Republican legal interpretations of the old 1887 law -- some called the ECA unconstitutional.
Apparently, with bipartisan support by Mitch (critic of his party's lack of "quality" candidates) this should get to the Democratic House majority before Republicans turn it into a shitshow next year.
Here's a look at what Schumer's trying to pass.
S 4573
Introduced Jul 20, 2022 by Susan Collins (R-ME) & Joe Manchin (D-WV)
117th Congress (2021–2023)
38 Cosponsors (21 Democrats, 15 Republicans, 2 Independents)
HR 8824
Introduced Sep 14, 2022 by Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)
No House Cosponsors
Here's a review of it by Democracy Docket from back in July:
I'd very much like to think that the Senate has considered the committee's recommendations on how to update the ECA, and that they'll get any bill revisions done in time for the bill's passage this week.
Unless the committee's recommendations are enacted ASAP, at least through this one bill, the country's not likely to get through 2024 without more strife. Not only should it never happen again, Democrats would be rightly faulted if we'd not done anything to prevent its happening again. So we should be very glad that Schumer will see this through.
One Outcome of Jan 6 Investigation: Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement
Act of 2022Legislative recommendations are key to the Jan 6 Committee's investigation. Although this bill was introduced before the committee could finish, it can still count as an important outcome of the House Select Committee's work, since Elector shenanigans were based on Republican legal interpretations of the old 1887 law -- some called the ECA unconstitutional.
Apparently, with bipartisan support by Mitch (critic of his party's lack of "quality" candidates) this should get to the Democratic House majority before Republicans turn it into a shitshow next year.
Here's a look at what Schumer's trying to pass.
S 4573
Introduced Jul 20, 2022 by Susan Collins (R-ME) & Joe Manchin (D-WV)
117th Congress (2021–2023)
38 Cosponsors (21 Democrats, 15 Republicans, 2 Independents)
HR 8824
Introduced Sep 14, 2022 by Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)
No House Cosponsors
Here's a review of it by Democracy Docket from back in July:
How did Trump try to exploit the ECA?
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Trump and his allies used the ambiguities of the ECA to bolster their arguments that the results of the election could be overturned. The lack of clarity over the vice president’s role in the count fueled the pressure campaign on former Vice President Mike Pence to reject valid electoral votes. The guidelines for deciding between multiple slates of electors inspired Trump supporters to designate fake electors. Most notably, the mechanism to challenge a state’s electoral votes played a role in the Jan. 6 insurrection as Trump called on his supporters to pressure members of Congress to object to the electoral votes of several states.
What would the proposed bill do?
S. 4573, or the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, updates the ECA in several key ways by
-- Mandating that rules for selecting electors in each state be made prior to Election Day,
-- Clarifying that the vice president’s role in overseeing the counting of the electoral votes is only ceremonial,
-- Raising the threshold for objections to a state’s electoral votes from just a single member of the House and Senate to 20% of both chambers, and
-- Designating the governor as the sole state official (unless otherwise specified by state laws) responsible for submitting a certificate of electors in order to make it harder for a defeated presidential candidate to submit false electoral slates.
The bill allows the presidential candidate who lost to challenge a state’s certification of electors in federal courts on an expedited basis. Challenges would be heard by a three-judge panel with the option of a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the proposal, Congress is required to count the electors submitted by the governor or, if challenged, the electors judged by a court to be valid.
S. 4573 also repeals an older 1845 law that allows states to appoint electors after Election Day in case of a “failed” election. Because the law never defines what a failed election is, Trump supporters cited this provision when arguing that state legislatures could appoint electors in defiance of the popular vote.
A separate section of the bill updates the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to allow multiple candidates to access funds and resources for their presidential transition in case of a disputed election. This came up most recently in 2020, when the Trump administration denied Biden’s campaign access to these resources for weeks after the election, but we also saw this happen in 2000 when the protracted election dispute delayed the transition and endangered U.S. national security...
Following the release of S. 4573, two members of the Jan. 6 committee, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), released a statement indicating the committee would release its own recommendations on how to update the ECA, a suggestion the committee confirmed during its July 21 hearing.
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-electoral-count-reform-act-unpacked/
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Trump and his allies used the ambiguities of the ECA to bolster their arguments that the results of the election could be overturned. The lack of clarity over the vice president’s role in the count fueled the pressure campaign on former Vice President Mike Pence to reject valid electoral votes. The guidelines for deciding between multiple slates of electors inspired Trump supporters to designate fake electors. Most notably, the mechanism to challenge a state’s electoral votes played a role in the Jan. 6 insurrection as Trump called on his supporters to pressure members of Congress to object to the electoral votes of several states.
What would the proposed bill do?
S. 4573, or the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, updates the ECA in several key ways by
-- Mandating that rules for selecting electors in each state be made prior to Election Day,
-- Clarifying that the vice president’s role in overseeing the counting of the electoral votes is only ceremonial,
-- Raising the threshold for objections to a state’s electoral votes from just a single member of the House and Senate to 20% of both chambers, and
-- Designating the governor as the sole state official (unless otherwise specified by state laws) responsible for submitting a certificate of electors in order to make it harder for a defeated presidential candidate to submit false electoral slates.
The bill allows the presidential candidate who lost to challenge a state’s certification of electors in federal courts on an expedited basis. Challenges would be heard by a three-judge panel with the option of a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Under the proposal, Congress is required to count the electors submitted by the governor or, if challenged, the electors judged by a court to be valid.
S. 4573 also repeals an older 1845 law that allows states to appoint electors after Election Day in case of a “failed” election. Because the law never defines what a failed election is, Trump supporters cited this provision when arguing that state legislatures could appoint electors in defiance of the popular vote.
A separate section of the bill updates the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to allow multiple candidates to access funds and resources for their presidential transition in case of a disputed election. This came up most recently in 2020, when the Trump administration denied Biden’s campaign access to these resources for weeks after the election, but we also saw this happen in 2000 when the protracted election dispute delayed the transition and endangered U.S. national security...
Following the release of S. 4573, two members of the Jan. 6 committee, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), released a statement indicating the committee would release its own recommendations on how to update the ECA, a suggestion the committee confirmed during its July 21 hearing.
I'd very much like to think that the Senate has considered the committee's recommendations on how to update the ECA, and that they'll get any bill revisions done in time for the bill's passage this week.
Unless the committee's recommendations are enacted ASAP, at least through this one bill, the country's not likely to get through 2024 without more strife. Not only should it never happen again, Democrats would be rightly faulted if we'd not done anything to prevent its happening again. So we should be very glad that Schumer will see this through.
December 20, 2022
After 18 months, 1000 interviews, hundreds of sworn depositions, millions of documents, thousands of pieces of evidence from film to texts to tweets to transcripts; after conducting ten televised hearings before millions, and entered into the Congressional Record; after publishing by several national publishers its Final Report of hundreds of pages and appendices, and entering its Final Report into the Congressional Record ...
Jack Smith has much, much more enormous power to take it from there.
Jack Smith will be targeting you, Cipollone, Meadows, Eastman; and you, refusers of subpoenas, takers of the 5th, obstructors, equivocators and liars; you, seditious conspirators, witness tamperers, money wirers, defrauders, aiders and abettors, accessories after the fact.
"And others..." indeed.
Jack Hold-My-Beer Smith
After 18 months, 1000 interviews, hundreds of sworn depositions, millions of documents, thousands of pieces of evidence from film to texts to tweets to transcripts; after conducting ten televised hearings before millions, and entered into the Congressional Record; after publishing by several national publishers its Final Report of hundreds of pages and appendices, and entering its Final Report into the Congressional Record ...
Jack Smith has much, much more enormous power to take it from there.
Jack Smith will be targeting you, Cipollone, Meadows, Eastman; and you, refusers of subpoenas, takers of the 5th, obstructors, equivocators and liars; you, seditious conspirators, witness tamperers, money wirers, defrauders, aiders and abettors, accessories after the fact.
"And others..." indeed.
December 19, 2022
IN REVIEW: Actions of The House Select Committee on Jan 6
Here is what the Jan 6 Committee did today, at the end of the 117th Congress.
First,
The Jan 6 Committee has made four criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, all naming Trump and others.
1. US 18, 1512c for obstruction of official proceeding for Trump, Eastman and others;
2. US 18, 371 for conspiring to defraud, impair, obstruct & defeat the US, against Trump, Eastman and others;
3. US 18 1001 for conspiring to make materially false statements to fed govt re fake electors, against Trump & others;
4. US 18 2383 for inciting, assisting, or aiding and comforting the insurrection to stop the peaceful transfer of power, which disqualifies the guilty from holding future office.
Complete findings for these referrals are in the Jan 6 Final Report, along with other people named in the criminal referrals.
The Jan 6 Committee states that it leaves to the DOJ to decide what and who to further charge, based on its own investigations.
Second,
The Jan 6 Committee has referred sanctions to the Congressional Ethics Committee against for four members of Congress for failure to comply with subpoenas:
-- House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
-- Scott Perry (R-PA)
-- Jim Jordan (R-OH)
-- Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
Third,
By unanimous vote the Jan 6 Committee has submitted to Congress its Final Report with Legislative Recommendations.
I can't wait to get my copy of The Jan 6 Report.
This House Select Committee's work will be in America's history books. 
December 19, 2022
An historic day for America and The Congressional Record.
January 6th Committee Final Public Meeting: Evidence Review, Criminal Referrals, Final Report Vote
An historic day for America and The Congressional Record.
December 17, 2022
start 00:25
"Crazy" -- Cee Lo and Danger Mouse
I remember when
I remember, I remember when I lost my mind
There was something so pleasant about that place
Even your emotions have an echo in so much space
And when you're out there without care
Yeah, I was out of touch
But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
I just knew too much
Will that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
Possibly
And I hope that you are having the time of your life
But think twice, that's my only advice
Come on now, who do you, who do you, who do you
Who do you think you are
Ha ha ha, bless your soul
You really think you're in control, well
I think you're crazy
I think you're crazy
I think you're crazy
Just like me
My heroes had the heart to lose their lives out on the limb
And all I remember is thinking I want to be like them
Ever since I was little
Ever since I was little it looked like fun
And it's no coincidence I've come
And I'll die when I'm done
But maybe I'm crazy
Maybe you're crazy
Maybe we're crazy
Probably
End of Year Reminder -- La lucha continua.
start 00:25
"Crazy" -- Cee Lo and Danger Mouse
I remember when
I remember, I remember when I lost my mind
There was something so pleasant about that place
Even your emotions have an echo in so much space
And when you're out there without care
Yeah, I was out of touch
But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
I just knew too much
Will that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
Possibly
And I hope that you are having the time of your life
But think twice, that's my only advice
Come on now, who do you, who do you, who do you
Who do you think you are
Ha ha ha, bless your soul
You really think you're in control, well
I think you're crazy
I think you're crazy
I think you're crazy
Just like me
My heroes had the heart to lose their lives out on the limb
And all I remember is thinking I want to be like them
Ever since I was little
Ever since I was little it looked like fun
And it's no coincidence I've come
And I'll die when I'm done
But maybe I'm crazy
Maybe you're crazy
Maybe we're crazy
Probably
December 15, 2022
I recall a recent post in DU about IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and amother Big Tech getting military contracts (which, from what I've read elsewhere, has gone on for years now); maybe I'm mistaken.
From two years ago:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/thousands-contracts-highlight-quiet-ties-between-big-tech-u-s-n1233171
But given what seems to have become as much cybarwar testing as "saving democracy for the West" (I also read somewhere during the midterms that Microsoft has its own cyber warroom), I have to ask what the US military's interest is in cyber domination. Does the US military really care whether or not it's paid by a democracy or a corporatocracy?
I also have to ask, could the war in Ukraine be a US miltary beta test of how governments, democratic politics and innocent humans survive?
Given its tech capabilities, to what extent need the US military concede to civilian command, anyway. I know what the military's oaths are; however, it's what the military does as a sector that reveals whether it, overall, carries out its oath.
Perhaps members in the National Security & Defense Group have information and thoughts on the meaning of these ongoing events?
Of course I know I'm over my head. But I'm not alone. Which is why I bring all this up to begin with -- cyber war in Ukraine, Big Tech military contracts, Big Tech's interests with force and democracy, civilian command.
Speculating On What The Cyberwar In Ukraine Means, and Whether We're Ready
-- Whether We Americans are Ready or Not for Rule of Cyber, and Whether or Not Cyber Dominance Supports Or Can Even Coexist With Democracy
Based on only a cursory search, I've come across this AP item.
I have to ask what the cost/benefits are to civilians of being informed of these ongoing activities. My first reaction is, are our elected leaders, and government in over their heads? Are we civilians? When over two million Americans subcontracting with the US government have classified clearance, how is democratic governance affected? Could the current DOJ give advice to congress about what kinds of laws it might develop to address rule of law relevance to cyber use/misuse issues, and then enforcement?
From this past June:
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-technology-90d760f01105b9aaf1886427dbfba917
On Ukraine’s battlefields, the simple act of powering up a cellphone can beckon a rain of deathly skyfall. Artillery radar and remote controls for unmanned aerial vehicles may also invite fiery shrapnel showers.
This is electronic warfare, a critical but largely invisible aspect of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Military commanders largely shun discussing it, fearing they’ll jeopardize operations by revealing secrets.
Electronic warfare technology targets communications, navigation and guidance systems to locate, blind and deceive the enemy and direct lethal blows. It is used against artillery, fighter jets, cruise missiles, drones and more. Militaries also use it to protect their forces...
It has become far more of a factor in fierce fighting in eastern Ukraine, where shorter, easier-to-defend supply lines let Russia move electronic warfare gear closer to the battlefield.
“They are jamming everything their systems can reach,” said an official of Aerorozvidka, a reconnaissance team of Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicle tinkerers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of safety concerns. “We can’t say they dominate, but they hinder us greatly.”
This is electronic warfare, a critical but largely invisible aspect of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Military commanders largely shun discussing it, fearing they’ll jeopardize operations by revealing secrets.
Electronic warfare technology targets communications, navigation and guidance systems to locate, blind and deceive the enemy and direct lethal blows. It is used against artillery, fighter jets, cruise missiles, drones and more. Militaries also use it to protect their forces...
It has become far more of a factor in fierce fighting in eastern Ukraine, where shorter, easier-to-defend supply lines let Russia move electronic warfare gear closer to the battlefield.
“They are jamming everything their systems can reach,” said an official of Aerorozvidka, a reconnaissance team of Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicle tinkerers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of safety concerns. “We can’t say they dominate, but they hinder us greatly.”
I recall a recent post in DU about IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and amother Big Tech getting military contracts (which, from what I've read elsewhere, has gone on for years now); maybe I'm mistaken.
From two years ago:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/thousands-contracts-highlight-quiet-ties-between-big-tech-u-s-n1233171
On Wednesday, newly published research from the technology accountability nonprofit Tech Inquiry revealed that the Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, have secured thousands of deals with Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Hewlett Packard and even Facebook that have not been previously reported.
The report offers a new window into the relationship between tech companies and the U.S. government, as well as an important detail about why such contracts are often difficult to find.
Tech Inquiry's research was led by Jack Poulson, a former Google research scientist who quit the company in 2018 after months of internal campaigning to get clarity about plans to deploy a censored version of its search engine in China called Project Dragonfly. Poulson has publicly opposed collaborations between American technology companies and the U.S. and foreign governments that aid in efforts to track immigrants, dissenters, and bolster military activity.
Poulson analyzed more than 30 million government contracts signed or modified in the past five years. The Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies accounted for the largest share of those contracts, with tech companies accounting for a fraction of the total number of contracts.
He found that the majority of the deals with consumer-facing tech companies involved subcontracts, a relationship in which the government contracts with one company, which in turn contracts with another company to complete obligations it doesn’t have the resources to fulfill.
Procurement contracts tend to be terse, Poulson said, masking the depth of the ties between tech companies and federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Defense.
“Often the high-level contract description between tech companies and the military looks very vanilla and mundane,” Poulson said in an interview. “But only when you look at the details of the contract, which you can only get through Freedom of Information [Act] requests, do you see the workings of how the customization from a tech company would actually be involved.”
Out of all the companies that surfaced in Tech Inquiry’s research, Microsoft stood out with more than 5,000 subcontracts with the Department of Defense and various federal law enforcement agencies since 2016...
Cloud solutions and storage for large government clients, however, isn’t the type of thing that can be bought off the shelf. Government cloud services are typically tailored to meet the security needs of the agency, according to Poulson, who worked as a professor of mathematics at Stanford University prior to his research role at Google.
Poulson's experience at Google helped inform his research.
In 2018, Google workers staged a protest of defense work over Project Maven, an initiative with the Department of Defense for Google to build artificial intelligence that tracks moving targets for drones. The project spurred thousands of Google employees to sign an internal petition. Some quit in protest.
None of Project Maven's contracts mentioned Google at all, Poulson said, and it was only through employee whistleblowing and investigative journalism that Google’s involvement became known.
The report offers a new window into the relationship between tech companies and the U.S. government, as well as an important detail about why such contracts are often difficult to find.
Tech Inquiry's research was led by Jack Poulson, a former Google research scientist who quit the company in 2018 after months of internal campaigning to get clarity about plans to deploy a censored version of its search engine in China called Project Dragonfly. Poulson has publicly opposed collaborations between American technology companies and the U.S. and foreign governments that aid in efforts to track immigrants, dissenters, and bolster military activity.
Poulson analyzed more than 30 million government contracts signed or modified in the past five years. The Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies accounted for the largest share of those contracts, with tech companies accounting for a fraction of the total number of contracts.
He found that the majority of the deals with consumer-facing tech companies involved subcontracts, a relationship in which the government contracts with one company, which in turn contracts with another company to complete obligations it doesn’t have the resources to fulfill.
Procurement contracts tend to be terse, Poulson said, masking the depth of the ties between tech companies and federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Defense.
“Often the high-level contract description between tech companies and the military looks very vanilla and mundane,” Poulson said in an interview. “But only when you look at the details of the contract, which you can only get through Freedom of Information [Act] requests, do you see the workings of how the customization from a tech company would actually be involved.”
Out of all the companies that surfaced in Tech Inquiry’s research, Microsoft stood out with more than 5,000 subcontracts with the Department of Defense and various federal law enforcement agencies since 2016...
Cloud solutions and storage for large government clients, however, isn’t the type of thing that can be bought off the shelf. Government cloud services are typically tailored to meet the security needs of the agency, according to Poulson, who worked as a professor of mathematics at Stanford University prior to his research role at Google.
Poulson's experience at Google helped inform his research.
In 2018, Google workers staged a protest of defense work over Project Maven, an initiative with the Department of Defense for Google to build artificial intelligence that tracks moving targets for drones. The project spurred thousands of Google employees to sign an internal petition. Some quit in protest.
None of Project Maven's contracts mentioned Google at all, Poulson said, and it was only through employee whistleblowing and investigative journalism that Google’s involvement became known.
But given what seems to have become as much cybarwar testing as "saving democracy for the West" (I also read somewhere during the midterms that Microsoft has its own cyber warroom), I have to ask what the US military's interest is in cyber domination. Does the US military really care whether or not it's paid by a democracy or a corporatocracy?
I also have to ask, could the war in Ukraine be a US miltary beta test of how governments, democratic politics and innocent humans survive?
Given its tech capabilities, to what extent need the US military concede to civilian command, anyway. I know what the military's oaths are; however, it's what the military does as a sector that reveals whether it, overall, carries out its oath.
Perhaps members in the National Security & Defense Group have information and thoughts on the meaning of these ongoing events?
Of course I know I'm over my head. But I'm not alone. Which is why I bring all this up to begin with -- cyber war in Ukraine, Big Tech military contracts, Big Tech's interests with force and democracy, civilian command.
December 13, 2022
Rachel Maddow Names Seven GOP Congressional Members From TPM's Trove of Texts To Meadows
Sorry the original was taken down. That's what corporate MSNBC does, and then substitutes "highlights."
I've replaced it with two other videos that somewhat cover what's now missing. 
34 members of Congress were texting Meadows from Nov to Jan 6 and after.
Rachel names a few from TPM:
-- Ralph Norman, SC, advocating for "marshall law," Jan 17
-- Mark Green, TN, pushing martial law, pre Jan 6
-- Greg Murphy, NC, state legislature override the votes, pre Jan 6
-- Ted Budd, NC, state legislature override, pre Jan 6
-- Paul Gosar, AZ, post Jan 6
-- Jim Jordan, OH, Pence could throw out the results, Jan 5
-- Andy Biggs, AZ, Nov 3, pre Jan 6 (in the TPM report, not in this video)
-- Scott Perry, PA, pre Jan 6
This show is full of very new news about the midterms.
One is the 'Top Line' Number -- that the country now has 140+ million Americans in Democratic trifecta states, and 131 million Americans in Republican trifecta states.
Another is the names of two orgs that paid out millions on ground work with 126 existing Democratic voting groups.
December 12, 2022
Going out on a limb here to say this piece and the FOX outcry convince me that not only was the content and technical excellence of the Jan 6 Committee Hearings unbeatable, but also that we won't ever have occasion to need to hold such public hearings again. And if Republicans ever try, they'll flop like Faux news.
A detailed review of the Jan 6 Committee's "production":
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/22/arts/television/jan-6-hearings-tv.html
FOX: Jan. 6 Committee hearings declared 'most important TV of the year' by the New York Times
FOX is losing its mind (what little there is to lose) over this New York Times Opinion piece.
When the reality of what they promoted bitch slaps them into wide eyed horror of their part in the last six years, of COURSE they would.
The hearings, produced by James Goldston, the former president of ABC News, succeeded not just through good intentions but also by being well-made, well-promoted TV. They may have been a most unusual eight-episode summer series (with more promised in September). But they had elements in common with any good drama...
Beginning the first hearing with footage of the mayhem at the Capitol was an unusual choice by congressional standards. But it was familiar to anyone who watches TV mini-series — the in medias res opening, dropping you at the scene of the crime and then doubling back to trace, step by step, episode by episode, the actions that brought us to this pass.
Each hearing, like the installments of a streaming thriller, focused on a discrete aspect of the attack on the election — the pressure on state governments, the incitement of the mob, the involvement of right-wing hate groups — each building on the last and drawing connections. Thursday night, the narrative came full circle, returning us to the climactic day, this time from the heart of the White House.
Like the graphics, the hearings’ structure gave viewers a map, making sure they knew where they were, where they’d been and where they were going...
this was possible partly because the Republican leadership, having first tried to put Trump ride-or-dies on the committee, declined to name any members.
This freed the committee and Mr. Goldston to do a rare thing in a modern congressional hearing: create a unitary narrative with a sustained argument, without one wing of the committee trying to kick up dust and derail the effort. Future committees may try to imitate this broadcast, but their detractors may not give them the same opportunity. This may be one more TV success that proves difficult to imitate...
... If the hearings end up accomplishing more than expected, it may be because they have expected more of their audience. However many reasons there are to be cynical, the committee took its shot, told its story and trusted that we still had decency, at long last.
Beginning the first hearing with footage of the mayhem at the Capitol was an unusual choice by congressional standards. But it was familiar to anyone who watches TV mini-series — the in medias res opening, dropping you at the scene of the crime and then doubling back to trace, step by step, episode by episode, the actions that brought us to this pass.
Each hearing, like the installments of a streaming thriller, focused on a discrete aspect of the attack on the election — the pressure on state governments, the incitement of the mob, the involvement of right-wing hate groups — each building on the last and drawing connections. Thursday night, the narrative came full circle, returning us to the climactic day, this time from the heart of the White House.
Like the graphics, the hearings’ structure gave viewers a map, making sure they knew where they were, where they’d been and where they were going...
this was possible partly because the Republican leadership, having first tried to put Trump ride-or-dies on the committee, declined to name any members.
This freed the committee and Mr. Goldston to do a rare thing in a modern congressional hearing: create a unitary narrative with a sustained argument, without one wing of the committee trying to kick up dust and derail the effort. Future committees may try to imitate this broadcast, but their detractors may not give them the same opportunity. This may be one more TV success that proves difficult to imitate...
... If the hearings end up accomplishing more than expected, it may be because they have expected more of their audience. However many reasons there are to be cynical, the committee took its shot, told its story and trusted that we still had decency, at long last.
Going out on a limb here to say this piece and the FOX outcry convince me that not only was the content and technical excellence of the Jan 6 Committee Hearings unbeatable, but also that we won't ever have occasion to need to hold such public hearings again. And if Republicans ever try, they'll flop like Faux news.
A detailed review of the Jan 6 Committee's "production":
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/22/arts/television/jan-6-hearings-tv.html
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Sarasota
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 36,137
